The Effects of Exclusive User Choice of Decision Aid Features on Decision Making

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick R. Wheeler ◽  
Donald R. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Choice Behavior ◽  
Positive Relationship ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Technology Choice ◽  
User Choice ◽  
Loan Officers ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Exclusive Choice

Decision Support Systems (DSS) frequently have multiple decision aid (DA) features, causing users to engage in exclusive choice behavior; i.e., choice between alternative DA features that results in one feature being used to the exclusion of all others. We hypothesize that: (1) users choose the least effective (least accurate) DA feature in certain predictability environments; (2) users choose the DA feature that they believe they are most competent with; and (3) choice between DA features improves performance compared to those assigned the same DA feature. We test these hypotheses in an experiment in which 164 participants act as loan officers who chose between two decision aids (a database aid and a regression aid). The results support our hypotheses. Users employed a choice heuristic that caused them to choose the least effective DA feature for the task more than or as often as the most effective DA feature. Results also indicate a positive relationship between perceived competence and DA feature choice, and the positive effect of DA choice. We conclude by describing the insights provided by the results into the heuristics of information technology choice.

scholarly journals Experts' views on the implementation of the prenatal screening decision aid in Iran: A qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Razieh Zahedi ◽  
Leila Nemati-Anaraki ◽  
Shahram Sedghi ◽  
Mamak Shariat
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Personal Factors ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

Background & Aim: Patient decision aids are detailed and personalized health education materials that assist patients in decision making. According to expert viewpoints, this study aimed to determine important factors in implementing the prenatal screening decision aid in Iran. Methods & Materials: In this qualitative study, 24 experts, including seven obstetricians, four information scientists, five managers or policymakers, and eight midwives, were selected using purposive and snowball sampling approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the data between January 2020 and June 2020 in Tehran, Iran. A prenatal screening decision aid was presented to the participants, and we asked them to raise their concerns and thoughts regarding the factors influencing the implementation of patient decision aids. We used MAXQDA 10 and applied conventional content analysis for data analysis. Results: Two organizational and personal factors themes were identified to implement Iran's prenatal screening decision aids. Conclusion: We identified the viewpoints of experts regarding major factors in patient decision aids implementation for prenatal screening. Before implementing prenatal screening decision aids in Iran, it would be helpful to consider these organizational and personal factors. Prenatal screening decision aids can provide better information for pregnant women and strengthen their decision-making ability.

Abstract 27: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid to Facilitate Cost-sensitive Decisions for Sacubitril-Valsartan

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea R Mitchell ◽  
Grace Venechuk ◽  
Larry A Allen ◽  
Dan D Matlock ◽  
Miranda Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

Background: Decision aids frequently focus on decisions that are preference-sensitive due to an absence of superior medical option or qualitative differences in treatments. Out of pocket cost can also make decisions preference-sensitive. However, cost is infrequently discussed with patients, and cost has not typically been considered in developing approaches to shared decision-making or decision aids. Determining a therapy’s value to a patient requires an individualized assessment of both benefits and cost. A decision aid addressing cost for sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was developed because this medication has clear medical benefits but can entail appreciable out-of-pocket cost. Objective: To explore patients’ perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. Methods: Twenty adults, ages 32-73, with HFrEF who met general eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan were recruited from outpatient HF clinics and inpatient services at 2 geographically-distinct academic health systems. In-depth interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using a semi-structured guide after patients reviewed the decision aid. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a template analytic method. Results: Participants confirmed that cost was relevant to this decision and that cost discussions with clinicians are infrequent but welcomed. Participants cited multiple ways that this decision aid could be helpful beyond informing a choice; these included serving as a conversation starter, helping inform questions, and serving as a reference later. The decision aid seemed balanced; several participants felt that it was promotional, while others wanted a more “positive” presentation. Participants valued the display of benefits of sacubitril-valsartan but had variable views about how to apply data to themselves and heterogenous interpretations of a 3% absolute reduction in mortality over 2 years. None felt this benefit was overwhelming; about half felt it was very small. The decision aid incorporated a novel “gist statement” to contextualize benefits and counter tendencies to dismiss this mortality reduction as trivial. Several participants liked this statement; few had strong impressions. Conclusion: Out of pocket cost should be part of shared decision-making. These data suggest patients are receptive to inclusion of cost in decision aids and that a “middle ground” between being promotional and negative may exist. The data, however, raise concerns regarding potential dismissal of clinically meaningful benefits and illustrate challenges identifying appropriate contextualizing language. The impact of various framings warrants further study, as does integration of decision aids with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost information during clinical encounters.

scholarly journals Do published patient decision aids for end-of-life care address patients’ decision-making needs? A systematic review and critical appraisal

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 985-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Phillips ◽  
Kate Lifford ◽  
Adrian Edwards ◽  
Marlise Poolman ◽  
Natalie Joseph-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Needs ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

Background: Many decisions are made by patients in their last months of life, creating complex decision-making needs for these individuals. Identifying whether currently existing patient decision aids address the full range of these patient decision-making needs will better inform end-of-life decision support in clinical practice. Aims and design: This systematic review aimed to (a) identify the range of patients’ decision-making needs and (b) assess the extent to which patient decision aids address these needs. Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL electronic literature databases were searched (January 1990–January 2017), supplemented by hand-searching strategies. Eligible literature reported patient decision-making needs throughout end-of-life decision-making or were evaluations of patient decision aids. Identified decision aid content was mapped onto and assessed against all patient decision-making needs that were deemed ‘addressable’. Results: Twenty-two studies described patient needs, and seven end-of-life patient decision aids were identified. Patient needs were categorised, resulting in 48 ‘addressable’ needs. Mapping needs to patient decision aid content showed that 17 patient needs were insufficiently addressed by current patient decision aids. The most substantial gaps included inconsistent acknowledgement, elicitation and documentation of how patient needs varied individually for the level of information provided, the extent patients wanted to participate in decision-making, and the extent they wanted their families and associated healthcare professionals to participate. Conclusion: Patient decision-making needs are broad and varied. Currently developed patient decision aids are insufficiently addressing patient decision-making needs. Improving future end-of-life patient decision aid content through five key suggestions could improve patient-focused decision-making support at the end of life.

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Quigley ◽  
Michael P Dillon ◽  
Stefania Fatone
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Partial Foot Amputation

Background: Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. Objectives: To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Conclusion: Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.

What Is the Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Cancer-Related Decisions? A Systematic Review Subanalysis

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen McAlpine ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
Lyndal J. Trevena ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions. Patients and Methods Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures. Results Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, −9.56 of 100; 95% CI, −13.90 to −5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials). Conclusion Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.

scholarly journals P563 Shared decision-making in pregnancy in inflammatory bowel disease: Design of a pregnancy in IBD decision aid (PIDA)

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S474-S475
Author(s):  
A J Williams ◽  
Y Leung ◽  
K O’Connor ◽  
V Huang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Surgical History ◽  
The Impact ◽  
In Pregnancy

Abstract Background A lack of IBD-specific reproductive knowledge has been associated with increased ‘voluntary childlessness’.Furthermore, a lack of patient and clinician knowledge may contribute to inappropriate medication changes during or after pregnancy that may lead to a flare of disease. Evidence exists for the benefit of decision aids to support decision-making in pregnancy in general, as well as in multiple other chronic disease; however, such a resource for pregnancy in IBD has not been identified. Methods Using International Patient Decision Aids Standards, we have commenced design of our Pregnancy in IBD Decision Aid (PIDA). A steering committee consisting of Canadian and Australian Healthcare professionals with an interest in IBD management in pregnancy, in addition to a patient representative was established. Initial patient and clinician focus groups were conducted. Themes prospectively chosen for discussion included inheritance, fertility, nutrition, medications, mode of delivery, breastfeeding, infant infections and vaccinations. We designed an electronic PIDA draft that incorporates individualised information (for example, type of IBD, pre-conception or pregnant, surgical history and current medications) in personalised decision-making. Further patient focus groups and interviews were conducted to obtain user opinion of the PIDA draft. Results In July 2017, patient and clinician focus groups were conducted at a Canadian site. Patient concerns regarding pregnancy included the impact of disease, previous surgical history on fertility, preterm delivery; the potential impact of current and past drug therapies on the fetus/ infant; and the negative impact of active disease on both maternal and fetal/infant health. Clinician concerns included the absence of pre-conception counselling and potential for lack of patient understanding about the impact of disease activity and IBD medication use in pregnancy. Patient feedback (n = 15) obtained through interviews at two Canadian and one Australian site regarding the current electronic PIDA draft was predominantly positive, with comments pertaining to the adequacy of content coverage, personalisation, readability and unbiased information presentation. Suggestions were made for inclusion of further content such as the impact of IBD on sexual function, expected laboratory changes and the timing of recommencement of medications post-partum. Conclusion The completion of pre and post-PIDA design focus groups and interviews affirmed the role for PIDA. Main decisions that were considered necessary to address included ideal timing of conception pending disease activity, management of medications and delivery methods. Ongoing user feedback is being obtained at Australian and Canadian sites currently.

Development of a New Encounter Decision Aid for Smoking Cessation (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herul Holland Da Sa Neto ◽  
Ines Habfast-Robertson ◽  
Christina Hempel-Bruder ◽  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Isabelle Jacot-Sadowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Tobacco Cessation ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Therapeutic Education ◽  
Shared Decision

BACKGROUND Smoking cessation is an essential part of preventing and reducing risk of smoking associated morbidity and mortality. However, there is often little time to discuss smoking cessation in primary care. Encounter decision aids, short, patient-facing decision aids used during clinic visits, optimize therapeutic education and increase interaction and the therapeutic alliance. Such a decision aid for smoking cessation could potentially improve counselling and increase the use of pharmacological treatments. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop and test an electronic encounter decision aid (DA) that facilitates physician-patient interaction and shared decision making for smoking cessation in primary care. METHODS We developed a DA (howtoquit.ch) adapted from a paper version developed by our team in 2017 following user-centered design principles. The DA is a one page interactive website presenting and comparing medications for tobacco cessation and electronic cigarettes. Each smoking cessation medication has a drop down menu that presents additional information, a video demonstration, and prescribing information for physicians. To test the DA, a questionnaire was submitted to general practitioner residents of an academic general medicine department, five general practitioners, and five experts in the field of smoking cessation. The questionnaire consisted of 4 multiple-choice and 2 free text questions assessing the usability/acceptability of the DA, the acquisition of new knowledge for practitioners, the perceived utility in supporting shared decision making and patients' choices, perceived strengths and weaknesses and if they would recommend the tool to other clinicians. RESULTS Six residents, 3 general practitioners in private practice, and 2 tobacco cessation experts completed the questionnaire (n=11), and 4 additional experts provided open-text feedback. On the 11 questionnaires, the DA was rated as practical and intuitive (mean 4.6/5) and supported shared decision making (mean 4.4/5), as comparisons were readily possible. Inclusion of explanatory videos was seen as a bonus. Several changes were suggested like grouping together similar medications and adding a landing page to briefly explain the site. Changes were implemented according to the end users comments. CONCLUSIONS The overall assessment of the DA by a group of physicians and experts was positive. The ultimate objective is to have the tool deployed and easily accessible for all to use.

Decision Support to Masters, Mates on Watch, and Pilots: The Piloting Expert System

1990 ◽  
Vol 43 (03) ◽  
pp. 364-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Grabowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New York ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Expert System ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Gulf Of Alaska ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Simple Task ◽  
Cognitive Decision

Piloting large vessels in increasingly congested waterways is no simple task. As in many ‘decision-making under uncertainty’ scenarios, masters, mates and pilots engaged in piloting are inundated with much information and required to make crucial decisions in real time. Piloting is also an inherently judgmental activity. Pilots and ships' captains invariably develop heuristics for transiting particular waterways. As vessels become larger, cargoes more hazardous, and the waterways more congested, decision aid technology is being considered to improve piloting decision-making. This paper describes one approach to providing improved on-board decision support to masters, mates on watch, and pilots navigating in restricted waters. We discuss (1) the use of cognitive decision aids in piloting, (2) the design of such a decision aid developed for New York harbour, (3) simulator experiments evaluating the expert system, and (4) plans to apply the approach and ‘lessons learned’ to the development of an expert system for tankers transiting the Gulf of Alaska.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making in Pregnancy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Design of a Patient Orientated Decision Aid

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid-Jane Williams ◽  
Neda Karimi ◽  
Radha Chari ◽  
Susan Connor ◽  
Mary A De Vera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Post Partum ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Inappropriate Medication ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
In Pregnancy

Abstract Objective: Research has indicated a lack of disease-specific reproductive knowledge among patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and this has been associated with increased “voluntary childlessness”. Furthermore, a lack of knowledge may contribute to inappropriate medication changes during or after pregnancy. Decision aids have been shown to support decision making in pregnancy as well as in multiple other chronic diseases. A published decision aid for pregnancy in IBD has not been identified, despite the benefit of pre-conception counselling and patient desire for a decision support tool. Development and feasibility testing of a decision aid encompassing reproductive decisions in the setting of IBDMethods:The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were implemented in the development of the Pregnancy in IBD Decision Aid (PIDA). A multi-disciplinary steering committee was formed. Patient and clinician focus groups were conducted to explore themes of importance in the reproductive decision-making processes in IBD. A PIDA prototype was designed and tested for feasibility.Results:Issues considered of importance to patients and clinicians encountering decisions regarding pregnancy in the setting of IBD included fertility, conception timing, inheritance, medications, infant health, impact of surgery, contraception, nutrition and breastfeeding. Decisions relating to conception and medications were chosen as the current focus of PIDA, however content inclusion was broad to support use across preconception, pregnancy and post-partum phases. Favourable and constructive user feedback was received. Conclusions:The novel development of a decision aid for use in pregnancy and IBD was supported by initial user testing.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of decision aids on cancer-screening decision-making: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e051156
Author(s):  
Masaya Hibino ◽  
Chisato Hamashima ◽  
Mitsunaga Iwata ◽  
Teruhiko Terasawa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Delivery Methods

IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document